[PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: exynos5: Add samsung,exynos8895-hsi2c compatible

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

On 12/16/24 10:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/12/2024 23:04, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>> Add samsung,exynos8895-hsi2c dedicated compatible for representing
>> I2C of Exynos8895 SoC. Since there are I2C buses that aren't implemented
>> as a part of USIv1 blocks, they only require a single clock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Ivanov <ivo.ivanov.ivanov1 at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml  | 26 ++++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml
>> index cc8bba553..b029be88e 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml
>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ properties:
>>            - samsung,exynos5250-hsi2c    # Exynos5250 and Exynos5420
>>            - samsung,exynos5260-hsi2c    # Exynos5260
>>            - samsung,exynos7-hsi2c       # Exynos7
>> +          - samsung,exynos8895-hsi2c
>>            - samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c
>>        - items:
>>            - enum:
>> @@ -94,9 +95,28 @@ allOf:
>>          - clock-names
>>  
>>      else:
>> -      properties:
>> -        clocks:
>> -          maxItems: 1
>> +      if:
>> +        properties:
>> +          compatible:
>> +            contains:
>> +              enum:
>> +                - samsung,exynos8895-hsi2c
>> +
>> +      then:
>> +        properties:
>> +          clocks:
> Missing minItems
>
>> +            maxItems: 2
>> +
>> +          clock-names:
> Ditto
>
>> +            maxItems: 2
>> +
>> +        required:
>> +          - clock-names
> I don't understand why do you need second, same branch in if, basically

Because, as I stated in the commit message, we have HSI2C controllers
both implemented in USIv1 blocks and outside. These that are a part of
USIv1 need 2 clocks, and those that aren't have only one. So it's not
a duplicate for the previous - autov9 sets a minitems of 2 and the
others have a maxitems of 1.

Best regards,
Ivo

> duplicating previous. But regardless of that, no nesting of ifs. Define
> clocks for all variants explicitly.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof